Some interesting points from both sides of the argument but in the end I d think it only slightly improves Froch's record. Dirrel fought way better against AA last night and I think that has a lot to do with extra experience gained from the Froch fight and a styles matchup (AA is has a shorter reach and lower workrate than Froch) Froch's fine record can hang on it's own merit imo.
I think it was clear from the Froch-Dirrell fight that Dirrel has way more potential than Froch and could be a beast in the future and on US soil. Credit to Froch for getting Dirrell to fight negatively and make the fight close, but I still think Dirrell won their fight and should have won it more clearly - if he fought the last half of the fight like he did the last three rounds. When he opened up he overpowered Carl.
I thought Direll beat Froch a few months back as Froch got a shocking hometown decision. Froch was made to miss all night by a technically better fighter.
Hardly shocking. Dirrell going into a champions back yard spent 3/4 of the fight running around the ring, falling down, complaining. The fight was there for the taking and if Dirrell had started to put his attacks together a couple of rounds before he did, then he probably would have won. It's all about opinions. I was at the fight and at the end, i really didnt know who had won it. A draw would probably have been a fair result in all honesty.
Yeah, Froch can now bring in the war on drugs side of the arguement the next time he slags off Calzaghe....
Do you think, for example, if Azumah Nelson had retired after his loss to Salvador Sanchez that Sanchez would get the credit he gets for that victory?
I would say yes as well. Froch looks very beatable, but they all have off nights against Froch ie Pascal, Taylor and Dirrell. Against Froch Dirrell was getting his first big title shot, and allegedly didnt go for it. Dosent anyone think that part of Dirrells poor performance was due to Froch (Im not saying Froch performed great either). Froch didnt just stand there with his hands up.
Yes it does and when I think about it now Froch might well have had the right game plan for dealing with AD rough housing him as it clearly got to him and put him in his shell. On the evening I though Froch won, then I thought it was a draw after the fall out of the fight but when I re-watched it again I went back to my original assesment that Froch won.
I always get impression Froch took Dirrell lightly and thought he would crack under intense pressure. Dirrell has shown bundles of ability but against two styles that help him look great...i cannot wait to see him vs Ward because he be fighting a man with all the similar attributes and a great tactical brain.
How else do you assess someone's resume other than looking at who they have beaten/lost to? And of course you can only assess those fighters by who they have beaten/lost to.
No it doesnt as far as i'm concerned carl froch is a limited fighter who barely hung onto his title the night he fought dirrel he didnt land 1 clean punch throughout the fight, if carl froch thinks he's accomplished something then hes a fool most observers including myself thought that fight was a draw
I very much doubt that 'most observers' thought it was a draw, where on earth are you getting that from?
:good to the above, ive heard close wins either way but noone say it was a draw! Obv a lot of focus is on dirrell-froch and dirrell-abraham but this is about Froch's resume as a whole. Not a lot of mentioning about the incredible Taylor stoppage (granted he was down but Froch dug deep man) and a real entertaining win in the Pascal fight. Plus wins against dobson, magee, adamu whos fighting Groves next week, these r decent guys. Chill on the cobra, he's shown a lot of heart, top chin and a gritty determintation to keep winnin and its built up a decent little record for himself. This super 6 despite obvious flaws sure is fun, lots to discuss which is wot we love people!!